Debates of March 20th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Resignation from Cabinet of the Member for Vancouver Granville

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton for starting off this debate, as it is an important one. However, I want to clarify a couple of things.

In the four hours of testimony that was given by the former attorney general before the justice committee, she stated that the Prime Minister told her this was her decision to make. She said specifically that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. She said that nothing that transpired was unlawful. Nor was anything criminal.

I want to return to the point where she said that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. The member for Carleton has, on repeated occasions in the House, asked questions about why jobs are being considered in this context.

What I am talking about refers back to the statute. The statute should ground our analysis of what we are talking about. Subsection 715.31(f) of the Criminal Code says that the purpose of this statute is “to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others....”

Does the member for Carleton agree that citing employees in a statute gives legitimacy to making appropriate inquiries about job impacts?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Except, Madam Speaker, there were no job impacts. The reality is that the company is not going anywhere. It is required to stay in Montreal under a loan agreement with the Quebec pension plan. As I said, it just renovated its office there and signed a 20-year lease. All of its construction projects in Canada require it to keep its employees doing that work in Canada.

Today, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said, first, that he never claimed 9,000 jobs would vanish. He said that at the very worst, those workers would continue working in Canada for other companies. Second, he said that the headquarters would not be going anywhere and he did not know where anyone would have got that idea.

The member opposite can parse legal language all he wants. Even if it were legal for the Attorney General to consider job impacts, there are no job impacts to consider.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, at the heart of this matter is the notion of prosecutorial independence. This is really the crux of the issue. I feel that through this whole sordid affair, we have finally been able to lift the curtain and have a peek at the inner workings of the PMO.

The fact is that the director of public prosecutions, who had all the evidence of the company's wrongdoings before her, made a decision. She is entitled to make that decision. The former attorney general agreed that this was final. What the Liberals seem to be advocating for or supporting is that it is okay to apply political pressure on the independence of our top prosecutor.

Could the member for Carleton explain to those in the House, and indeed to Canadians, the dangerous precedent that would set for our country and how prosecutorial independence must be protected at all costs?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer that question, I ask people to imagine a world in which a prime minister is able to interfere in criminal prosecutions to have charges set aside. Imagine if that were a regular occurrence, if powerful people accused of crimes could knock on the door of the PMO and ask to have charges dropped and the prime minister picked up the phone or met in person with the attorney general and said “make it happen”. What kind of world would we live in if that were how justice is administered? Why would we even have a prosecutor or a judge for that matter, if prime ministers and other politicians had the ability to shelf charges? It is a massive concept.

It is mind-boggling that the Prime Minister thought this was okay. He and his team contacted her 20 times. She documented it. She said there were veiled threats. She was hounded, in her words. She compared it to the Saturday night massacre, which is a reference to Richard Nixon's firings to cover up Watergate.

This is not a Conservative spewing these allegations. This is a Liberal, the former attorney general appointed by the Prime Minister. That is incredibly serious.

He tried to shut down a criminal trial earlier and now he is trying to shut down an investigation of this today. We will not let him. We are convening the ethics committee. It is beginning its investigation. He better show up and answer some questions.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is about a Prime Minister who wanted to do a favour for friends. He wanted to do a favour in the form of allowing them off the hook.

In order to do this favour for his friends, he first needed to strong-arm the former attorney general into doing the dirty work for him. She stood in his way, between the action of justice and the action of injustice, the action of maintaining integrity and the action of polluting our justice system.

The former attorney general faithfully stood in that passageway and she resisted the strong-arming movements of the Prime Minister, his attempt to manipulate her to facilitate his desire rather than uphold justice.

We are talking about the Prime Minister of Canada. This is a leader on the world stage. This is an individual in whom Canadians have placed a great deal of trust. This is an individual in whom we have placed the responsibility of guiding our country. Instead of stewarding this place of trust and responsibility, he has actually abused his position of power.

Why should Canadians care? They should care because the Prime Minister, when he ran for election, made a series of promises, and they were the right promises. He said that we needed to be open and honest. He promised his government would do that.

The Prime Minister promised he would let the light shine in, that he would be more open, more transparent. He said, “It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.”

At another time, in the former attorney general's mandate letter as the justice minister, he said, “ I expect you to ensure that our initiatives respect the Constitution of Canada, court decisions, and are in keeping with our proudest legal traditions.” He went on to say:

We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do.

The Prime Minister asked his former attorney general to abide by these principles. She did; he did not. Now she is the one being silenced.

The Prime Minister, during his election run, also said this, “Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways. This is what positive politics can do.”

Those of us on the side of opposition are asking the Prime Minister to abide by his words “sunny ways”. Why are we not allowing the sun to shine in? Why are we not allowing the details to come forward? Why are we not giving the former attorney general of Canada the opportunity to share her story?

This matters to Canadians. In the same way they have the opportunity, I daresay the privilege, to elect their officials, they also have the responsibility to hold them accountable. Now, of course, those of us on the side of opposition share that responsibility with Canadians. We, too, will hold the government to account. We, too, will in fact insist that the truth be told, which to date, it has not been.

Let us look more closely at what happened, and to do so, let us look at a number of voices that have been shared. Starting with the former attorney general herself. She said:

For a period of approximately four months, between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

She went on to talk about multiple phone calls, multiple emails, multiple text messages, multiple meetings that were held to try to pressure her. She goes on to talk about veiled threats that were issued toward her. This all came out during her initial testimony to the committee.

She also said that the Prime Minister stressed that there was an election taking place in Quebec and that therefore she needed to do this. She needed to do the Prime Minister's dirty work. That is interesting.

What we have here is a case of sustained and inappropriate pressure. We have an issue of the Prime Minister actually bullying the former attorney general, trying to get her to do his dirty work. As a result, we know that the former attorney general was fired from her post as the attorney general and was moved into a different cabinet post, and then she eventually resigned from there.

The Prime Minister would try to convince Canadians that there were two different experiences and that her interpretation is simply wrong. However, why will we not legitimize her voice? Has the Prime Minister not advocated for all this time that we would listen to the women among us? In particular, I would hope that we would listen to the former attorney general of Canada, who, I might add, is the very first indigenous female attorney general that this country has seen. Why would we not listen to her voice? Why would we not give it weight?

When that did not work, the Prime Minister decided that he would try another excuse. He said that it had to do with protecting 9,000 jobs that exist within SNC-Lavalin, but we know now that is not true either. The CEO of the company has come forward and said that this is not the case at all and that he actually never said that to the Prime Minister.

Well, that is one voice, the former attorney general, and of course the Prime Minister has tried to squash her voice.

However, out came another voice, and that was the voice of Gerald Butts, the chief adviser to the Prime Minister. His voice said, “I quit”, and he walked out. That is interesting.

Then came another voice, the voice of the former president of the Treasury Board, and she too said, “I resign”, but she wrote a letter with her resignation. In her letter she said:

The solemn principles at stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system. It is a fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that our Attorney General should not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases. Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised.

She finished her letter by saying that “There can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.” She could not be more correct.

Now we have three voices in the mix, but then there was a fourth. The Clerk of the Privy Council also tendered his resignation.

Then just today the member for Whitby also resigned. She resigned and shared her story of also being bullied by the Prime Minister. She shared a story of the Prime Minister calling her up and yelling at her over the phone so loudly that her husband could overhear the entire conversation.

This does not speak of a Prime Minister who deeply cares about wanting to serve his country. This does not speak well of a Prime Minister claiming to be a feminist.

Let us look at this. He has three female members who have all resigned from their posts, who have left, who have shed light on the fact that the Prime Minister has mistreated them.

Let us look at another set of voices, shall we? Let us look at the media.

The media have said that “It's fair to say that it's a constitutional crisis.” A former judge said that in an article.

The former Ontario attorney general said that “It opens the door to prosecuting enemies of the government and giving immunity to its friends, which is despotic.”

The Toronto Star said that “It is going to be impossible to look at Justin Trudeau's government the same way again.”

The National Post said that “...it sounded and felt like a death knell for the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau.”

There is plenty of commentary out there—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member just mentioned the Prime Minister by name.

She has 10 seconds, so please wrap up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, these are a number of voices around the table. They have been heard, but there is one voice that is incomplete, and that is the voice of the former attorney general. Today we are asking that this place give permission for her to speak. In particular, we are asking that the Prime Minister lift the muzzle.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lethbridge for her contributions today.

I will just point out a couple of clarifications before my question. The first is that as an exception, for only the fourth time in history since 1987, cabinet confidence was waived and the absolutely unprecedented solicitor-client privilege was waived to allow the former attorney general to speak. That is the first point.

Second, when she spoke, she said on the record that nothing that happened was unlawful and nothing that happened was criminal. She said in fact that the state of our institutions and the rule of law are intact. She said:

I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.

Given that evidence and given that there is a desire from the opposition to get to the root of the matter, I put it to the member opposite that the Ethics Commissioner is doing an investigation in which they have powers to summon witnesses, have them put under oath, give evidence and produce documents. In this matter they have the same powers as a court of record.

Is that not the best venue for seeking the answers that the opposition clamours for in this case?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, in her letter written on March 14, the former attorney general said:

These matters are still unfolding, and further clarity and information is needed. As in other places around the globe, our democratic institutions and norms - including the rule of law and prosecutorial independence - are under pressure. Collectively, and as individuals, we are challenged to respond.

She went on to say that there is more to be shared, that there is more to her testimony, that there is more that happened after she stepped down as the attorney general of Canada. She has asked for permission to share the remainder of her testimony, and the Prime Minister is refusing her the opportunity to do so.

Members of the justice committee have brought forward multiple motions asking that the former attorney general of Canada be allowed to speak. The Liberal members of the justice committee have shut them down over and over again.

To answer the member opposite's question about whether it is the most appropriate place to hear, sure—so why do they not let her speak?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say it was a pleasure to join in this debate, but there is nothing that gives me pleasure in watching the government performing quite a rare feat.

Oftentimes in the case of a political scandal, we can watch the scandal unfold as this one has, over a number of weeks, and the original sin becomes eclipsed by the actions that follow the original sin. Canadians do not like the cover-up. They do not like the lies heaped upon lies.

The government has accomplished something whereby the original sin and the cover-up of that sin might be equally detrimental to people's faith in politics, and certainly their faith in the Prime Minister.

My question for my friend is very specific.

First of all, cabinet confidentiality has been waived a number of times in Canadian history, so the Liberals pulling a muscle patting themselves on the back for partially allowing the former attorney general to speak deserves little credit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice claimed that the stature of our justice system remains strong. That is not for a lack of effort from the Prime Minister and his office to undermine the independence of our judiciary.

If the former attorney general had succumbed to the sustained pressure that she talked about and the inappropriate pressure that she also talked about, what would be the effect on the independence of our courts and the ability of Canadians to believe that there is one set of laws for all people, rather than one for everyone and another for the wealthy and well-connected?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what is at stake here.

We see that the Prime Minister of Canada tried to strong-arm the former attorney general of Canada into administering special favours to the Prime Minister's friends at SNC-Lavalin. If we were to give in to a system like this, if the former attorney general of Canada had given in to the Prime Minister's demands, it would result in a justice system that is forever compromised, a justice system with one set of rules for the wealthy, the rich, the powerful, the elite, and then another set of rules for those who do not fit within that category.

That is not the Canada in which we live, nor is it the Canada in which we should want to live. I commend the former attorney general for taking the stand that she did and I believe she should be given every opportunity to speak her truth.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish all members a happy International Day of La Francophonie.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the principles of cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege in a governmental context. I would like to begin with a few words about the important work the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done so far.

As we know, the committee has held, to date, 11 meetings on the subject of remediation agreements, the Shawcross doctrine and the discussions between the Office of the Attorney General of Canada and government colleagues. The committee heard from 10 different witnesses over the course of approximately 13 hours.

On February 21, that committee heard from the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada as well as the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, Ms. Nathalie Drouin, for an hour and twenty minutes, as well as from the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time, Mr. Michael Wernick, for an hour and a half.

On February 25, a few days later, the committee heard from Mary Condon, the interim dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School; Maxime St-Hilaire, associate professor in the faculty of law of the University of Sherbrooke; Wendy Berman, a lawyer and partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP; Kenneth Jull, a lawyer at Gardiner Roberts; and academic Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, senior associate counsel at Woodward and Company LLP and a professor at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, over the course of a period of about two and a half hours.

Two days subsequent to that, on February 27, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from the former attorney general for a period of almost four hours as a result of an unprecedented waiver that was issued by the Prime Minister. It was an exceptional waiver that addressed cabinet confidentiality, solicitor-client privilege and any other duty of confidentiality to the extent that they were applicable.

That waiver was indeed exceptional. Since 1987, there have been only four instances of cabinet confidence being waived, and none of those cases, absolutely none, included a waiver of solicitor-client privilege. The waiver was broad in scope, such that no witness was prevented from providing evidence relating to any relevant information during the period covered by the waiver, which was the focus of the committee's review.

As well, in response to this waiver, on March 6 the committee heard from the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Gerald Butts, for two and a half hours, in addition to recalling Ms. Drouin and Mr. Wernick, who also appeared for approximately two and a half hours.

On Tuesday, Liberal members of the committee sent a letter to the committee chair, indicating that they had achieved their objectives with respect to these meetings. They expressed that following the testimony of all witnesses, they believed that all rules and laws had been followed and that Canadians now had the necessary information to arrive at their own individual conclusions.

Yesterday, the committee adopted a motion to move on to a study of how to amend the Canada Human Rights Act “to stem the propagation of hateful acts and incitement of hate”. In my opinion, the committee's timing could not be better, in light of the tragic events that unfolded in Christchurch, New Zealand, last Friday, which bear an eerie resemblance to the tragic events on January 29, 2017, at the mosque in Quebec City.

As the Prime Minister stated in this chamber on Monday, in response to the horrific acts in Christchurch, New Zealand:

As leaders, as a privileged few with power and an audience, we have a responsibility to do something. This responsibility is not negotiable. It is not to be waived when it is politically convenient.... We have to chase out this hatred from our parties, fight it online, denounce it at town halls and push back when it reaches our front door.

We can take a stand here and now in Canada and around the world and say that enough is enough, that the days of spewing hatred and inciting violence without consequences are over.

We must counter this hatred, and together we will.

As a Muslim-Canadian member of this Parliament, I thought those were some of the most important words that have been spoken in this chamber since I was privileged enough to become a member.

The justice committee continues to do important work, and I look forward to its report on the propagation of hateful acts and the incitement of hate.

We also know that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation into this matter, and that the investigation is ongoing. On March 18, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a special adviser to examine the position of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister by June 30 of this year regarding whether any legislative changes may or may not be recommended.

That is insofar as the important issue that has surfaced in the context of these hearings with respect to what is called the Shawcross doctrine and the notion of potentially dividing the roles between two separate individuals, the role of the attorney general as compared to the role of minister of justice.

As the Prime Minister has stated, Canadians expect and deserve to have faith in their institutions and the people who serve within them. I am confident that the study by the special adviser, as well as the investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, will be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the additional answers and information that they seek.

I would now like to turn to the concept of cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege.

As all of us in this chamber know, the Canadian governmental system is based on a cabinet system. The cabinet consists of ministers acting in the name—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage is rising on a point of order.

[Pablo Rodriguez]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to table the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 2192 and 2211, and a revised response to Question No. 1720.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, as I was indicating and as members well know, the Canadian governmental system is based on a cabinet system. Cabinet consists of ministers acting in the name of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and establishes the federal government's policies and priorities for the country. Cabinet ministers are collectively responsible for all actions taken by the cabinet and must publicly support all cabinet decisions.

In order to reach final decisions, ministers must be able to express their views freely and openly during the discussions that are held in cabinet. That level of candour is critical to their deliberations. To allow the exchange of views at the cabinet table to be disclosed publicly would result in the erosion of the collective responsibility of ministers and their ability to execute that important function.

As a result, the collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which upholds the principle of collective responsibility and enables ministers to engage in the full, frank, honest and direct discussions that are necessary for the effective functioning of a cabinet system of government.

These are not just words I am reading into the record; rather, this has been opined on and observed by the Supreme Court of Canada, recognizing that cabinet confidences and cabinet confidentiality are essential to good government in Canada.

In the decision of Babcock v. Canada in 2002, at paragraph 18, the court explained:

The process of democratic governance works best when Cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.

“Unreservedly” is the word used by the Supreme Court of Canada.

To preserve this rule of confidentiality, subsection 70(1) of the Privacy Act provides that the act does not actually apply to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

Subsection 70(2) of the Privacy Act indicates that cabinet confidence applies to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, committees of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, cabinet and committees of cabinet. Committees of cabinet include standing committees, ad hoc committees and any other committees of ministers.

In addition, meetings or discussions between ministers can result in the creation of records that are themselves also cabinet confidences, provided that the discussions concerned the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy.

What is a cabinet confidence? They are defined in the act as information contained in six types of documents that are described in 70(1)(a) through (f) of the privacy legislation. The six types of documents do not constitute an exhaustive list, but rather provide a series of examples of records that are considered cabinet confidences.

This includes memoranda.

Paragraph 70(1)(a) stipulates that the act does not apply to memoranda the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to cabinet. The purpose and content of a document are the determining factors, not its title.

Drafts of memoranda are also confidences. Thus, a draft memorandum that was created for the purpose of presenting proposals and recommendations to cabinet but was never actually presented to cabinet is still a confidence. Equally, a memorandum in final form is a confidence even if it has not been presented to cabinet. Material appended to a memorandum presented to cabinet will not necessarily be a confidence. It depends on the purpose of the document and its placement.

A second category is discussion papers. Paragraph 70(1)(b) stipulates that the act does not apply to discussion papers the purpose of which is to present background explanations, analyses of problems or policy options to cabinet for consideration in making decisions. The Cabinet Papers System was amended in 1984 and these discussion papers stopped being created. Paragraph 70(1)(b) was therefore no longer invoked for cabinet documents after that date.

In the 2003 ruling in Canada (Environment) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that those parts of cabinet memoranda or records intended to brief ministers, which are equivalent to what were formerly known as discussion papers, presenting, for example problems, analyses and political options, and that are appended to a document, must be identified and processed in the same manner as if they were part of a discussion paper.

There is a third category that includes the agenda and the minutes of cabinet meetings and the records of decisions made in such meetings. Paragraph 70(1)(c) states that the act does not apply to agenda of Council or records recording deliberations or decisions of Council. This type or record relates to meetings of the cabinet and cabinet committees and includes agenda, minutes and records of the decisions made at these meetings.

It should be noted that this category will include drafts of these documents and any informal notes that officials take at cabinet or cabinet committee meetings. A distinction must be made between the text of the formal record of decision and the substance of the decision of cabinet.

The formal text of the record of decision is always a confidence and is excluded from the application of the act for a period of 20 years. The substance of a cabinet decision may be disclosed to the public as deemed appropriate by cabinet or by a minister with the approval of cabinet.

A fourth category, records of communications between ministers, paragraph 70(1)(d) of the act, excludes from the application of the act any information contained in records used for or reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the Crown on matters related to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy.

A fifth category, again stipulated in the act, is records to brief ministers. Paragraph 70(1)(e) of the statute excludes from the application of the act any information contained in records the purpose of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to matters that are before or are proposed to be brought before the cabinet.

This paragraph also excludes information in records the purpose of which is to brief ministers in relation to matters that are the subject of communications or discussions between ministers concerning the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy.

A sixth category is draft legislation. Paragraph 70(1)(f) excludes any information contained in draft legislation from the application of the act. It is not relevant whether the legislation was ever in fact introduced into the House of Commons or the Senate or indeed even seen by cabinet; it remains a cabinet confidence, showing the importance of the confidentiality principle.

The operation of subsection 70(1) is subject to certain time limits set out in subsection 70(3) of the act. Pursuant to paragraph 70(3)(a), confidences that have been in existence for more than 20 years cannot be excluded under subsection 70(1) of the act. After that time period, information in the record becomes subject to the act and may be released subject to any otherwise applicable exemptions.

Pursuant to paragraph 70(3)(b), discussion papers are no longer excluded from the application of the act if the decisions to which the discussion papers relate have been made public or, if the decisions have not been made public, four years have passed since the decisions were actually made.

Returning to solicitor-client privilege, as we have already discussed, confidentiality in communication between a solicitor and client is premised on the notion that if the consultation between a client and the solicitor cannot be kept confidential, then clients might be less inclined to be forthcoming with their lawyers, thus reducing the quality of the advice that a lawyer can give.

As one of the many lawyers who has a place in this chamber, I cannot overstate how important this principle is to the functioning of the legal system in this country and the importance of the legal system in this country. It is something that is critical to all parties in this chamber.

What is important to underscore is that much like the necessity for having frank, open and honest discussions around the cabinet table, frank and open discussions between a lawyer and his or her client are absolutely pivotal to the operations of the legal system and the justice system as it unfolds, whether that is in the civil context or the criminal context.

Over the last few decades in Canada, because solicitor-client privilege is so important, it has evolved from a mere rule of evidence to a substantive rule of law, as well as a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada has described solicitor-client privilege as “a principle of fundamental justice and a civil right of supreme importance in Canadian law”.

Given the importance of solicitor-client privilege, the court has often declared that it should not be compromised unless absolutely necessary. It must remain absolute, with few exceptions. As such, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted strict standards for ensuring its protection.

Privilege is attached to every communication between a lawyer and a client that is for the purposes of giving and receiving legal advice and that is intended to be confidential. The privileged nature of a document or the information it contains does not depend on the category of the document but on its content and what it can reveal about the relationship and communication between a client and his or her notary or lawyer.

All communications between a solicitor and a client directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice are privileged, along with communications within the continuum in which the solicitor tenders advice.

Solicitor-client privilege enjoys a status more elevated than that enjoyed by almost any other recognized privilege, given the central role it plays in the effective operation of our legal system. It is in the public interest that the free flow of legal advice between lawyer and client be encouraged and protected, as noted by the Supreme Court in the 2008 Blood Tribe decision, which states, “Without it, access to justice and the quality of justice in this country would be severely compromised.”

We have said many times that solicitor-client privilege is an important part of the Canadian legal system and should only be waived in appropriate circumstances. That being said, in order to facilitate the work of the ongoing investigations, we have announced an unprecedented waiver to fully sweep away the obstacles. As I have explained, that exceptional waiver addresses cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege and any other duty of confidentiality to the extent that they apply. This has enabled any person who engaged in discussions on this matter to fully participate in the committee process.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the effort of my friend to get us into the technicalities of cabinet confidence. It was another effort, I suppose, to do what the Liberals have been doing so aggressively, which is to change the channel.

The member talked about the Ethics Commissioner, and I want to ask a question about that. Is he aware that subsection 44(7) of the Conflict of Interest Act, under which the Ethics Commissioner has jurisdiction to deal with reports, requires that the report be provided in the House by the commissioner?

Sadly, the commissioner is on an extended medical leave. Therefore, is it, in his opinion, legally possible for the commissioner to make a report? The act does not contemplate an interim commissioner appointed by the OIC or otherwise. Could this be done if the commissioner wanted to do it?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria for his contributions today and his work over many years on the justice committee.

The Ethics Commissioner's investigation has significant powers to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence orally, in writing and under oath, and to produce documents. In this regard it has the same powers as a court of record in civil cases.

With respect to the medical leave of absence that the current commissioner is on, and subsection 44(7), as was previously cited, I will undertake to get back to the member on that important question. However, it should not impede the continuity of the investigation. It is not germane to the identity of one individual. The Ethics Commissioner's office is the one doing the investigation, and the Ethics Commissioner's office should be empowered to provide the report to the chamber if that is what the act stipulates.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first chance to rise on the matter of supply today. I had hoped to put some of these questions to my Conservative colleagues.

There must be more answers to this question. To my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, I want to suggest to all of us here in this place that getting to the bottom of this is crucial, but we must not jump to conclusions. I am keeping an open mind as to who was calling the shots. Who was it who asked the Clerk of the Privy Council to phone our former attorney general at home and, for an hour and a half, threaten her? The context of that conversation he claimed he could not remember because we was not wearing a wire.

I want to suggest some other names to this place, names that have not been mentioned. Gwyn Morgan was chair of the board of SNC-Lavalin through many of the periods in which they are now investigated for corporate crime and bribery. He was also chair of the board of governance. Questions, at the time, were raised about his role and what should have been known through the good governance of SNC-Lavalin about the nearly $50 million that somehow got past their notice as a corporation. Is it easy to lose $50 million? I doubt it. They have the same auditor they had in the beginning, with no changes.

I mention Gwyn Morgan because he was a major contributor to the B.C. Liberal Party and Christy Clark. Ben Chin, the first name mentioned in the list of 11 people who harassed and pressured our former attorney general, was, of course, formerly at the right hand of Christy Clark. In other words, there are plausible trails of those who put pressure.

There was the former Harper administration's full engagement in promoting Arthur Porter to a place of honour, even though he was a co-conspirator with SNC-Lavalin.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contributions today and her contributions in this chamber generally.

In terms of what she has raised about SNC-Lavalin and good governance issues, it is important that the record reflect that concerns about good governance at any corporate institution in this country are pivotal. Some of what has been lost in some of the discussions over the past several weeks on this matter have failed to address or note that even in the context of pursuing remediation agreements, corporate governance and good governance are central.

In the legislation at subsection 715.34(1), it says that any remediation agreement that might be pursued requires an agreed statement of facts, an admission of responsibility, a forfeiture of any benefits, restitution for victims and a payment of a penalty. That is the kind of good governance that all Canadians seek and that all parliamentarians seek in this context.

With respect to the specific names, I have no knowledge of those individuals or the roles they may have played in this context.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to clarify something that seems to be a subject of some debate.

Before our committee, all of the relevant witnesses as to the facts spoke under exactly the same order in council. All of them had the same waiver of solicitor-client privilege. All of them had the same waiver of cabinet confidence. No witness who came before the committee spoke to the period following the date that the hon. member for Vancouver Granville became the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Our committee study was on the subject of the interactions between the office of the Attorney General and other government officials. The issue we were looking at was whether or not the former attorney general was pressured in her role as Attorney General in order to reach a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

Is it possible that, after she became veterans affairs minister, she could be pressured to enter into a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, the answer to that, and it is an erudite-type question, is no. It is not possible, pursuant to the law. The only one who has the power to enter into a litigation decision is the Attorney General of Canada at the time. They can either take control of a particular piece of litigation or issue a litigation directive pursuant to the governing legislation. That is the Attorney General only.

I thank the member for his stewardship of the justice committee and for the important decision they have just taken to pursue a study of online hate.

However, in further clarification to a question posed by the member for Victoria, the actual issue of the medical leave was not established as permanent, so the question he put to me with respect to section 44 of the Conflict of Interest Act is actually hypothetical.

[Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about the work that the committee had done, including the witnesses who had appeared before the committee. While some of the witnesses members of the opposition had requested did appear, others have not been allowed to appear. We have requested that the former attorney general return, and that was not the case.

The parliamentary secretary referenced former Judge Turpel-Lafond appearing before the committee. He also referenced the Shawcross doctrine. I want to pull a quote from former Judge Turpel-Lafond. She said that she thinks it has a “fairly flimsy foundation in terms of lawful authority”, in respect of the Shawcross doctrine.

Knowing that the grounds by which the former attorney general was approached have been identified as fairly flimsy, and seeing with the Mark Norman case that the current government is not afraid to prosecute people for stepping outside of cabinet confidence, does the parliamentary secretary think that the order in council is sufficient? Why will he not let the former attorney general speak?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, taking the unprecedented step of waiving solicitor-client privilege was important and it demonstrates respect for transparency and openness in this matter, which has been rightfully raised by many parties in the House in terms of what exactly transpired. The discussion about the Shawcross doctrine is equally important.

Again, I congratulate the member opposite on his election and on participating in the justice committee to date.

My answer to him is that the important thing is that the justice committee has shone the light on a very pressing issue and that is an issue that is bearing further study as to whether the role of Attorney General and Minister of Justice should remain as it has for 152 years now since Confederation, or whether it should be separated. That is exactly what the special adviser is looking at because it bears further scrutiny.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is unfamiliar with Gwyn Morgan. He was the person whom, members may recall, Stephen Harper attempted to appoint as chair of the public appointments commission process. The interviews about that process ended the process of having parliamentary committees interview prospective candidates because Gwyn Morgan underwent a rough ride, his heavy support for the Conservative Party being raised as a reason that perhaps he should not chair the public accounts commission. It is entirely possible that the reason there is pressure not to have this go to open court is to protect the reputations of business leaders such as Mr. Morgan.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have no knowledge of that individual. That name has not surfaced thus far in any of the proceedings that I have been following.

What I can say is that the issue of corporate governance is a critical one. It is one that we are looking at very closely.

In terms of the powers of a court, the Ethics Commissioner, pursuant to the powers that are entrenched in statute, actually has the same powers as a court, as I have articulated, in respect of summoning individuals, putting them under oath, and compelling documents and the production of documents.